In the case of Pleasant Township v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Aetna Life Insurance Company. The dispute arose when Pleasant Township issued bonds to fund railroad construction and later refused to pay them off on grounds that they were illegally issued. However, these bonds had been purchased by Aetna Life Insurance Company who sued for their value. The court held that even if there was illegality in issuing the bonds, it did not absolve Pleasant Township from its obligation as it had received benefits from the railroads built with those funds. Furthermore, since AETNA was a bona fide purchaser (i.e., bought in good faith without notice of any defect), it could enforce payment regardless of any irregularities or illegalities associated with issuance of such securities.

In the dissenting opinion for Pleasant Township v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a township in Indiana to issue bonds as part of an incentive package for a private company contradicted previous rulings and set a dangerous precedent. The dissenting justices believed that this case represented an overreach of corporate power, with public entities being used to further private interests. They contended that allowing such actions would lead to corruption and misuse of taxpayer funds, undermining public trust in government institutions. Furthermore, they expressed concern about the potential impact on local economies if municipalities were allowed unchecked authority to issue bonds without clear guidelines or restrictions.